>> Let's NOT start that discussion again. > > Bruce's comments were a useful addition to the technical discussion.
Yes, I'm just trying to avoid sidelining this into a discussion of search_path management commands, which we already failed to come to a consensus spec for earlier this year. Not that we don't need to have better search-path management, just that any discussion on that should be a separate thread. Overall, I'm seeing this patch proposal suffer from an extreme excess of bike-shedding. The original proposal was to have a directory where one could put config files; the revised spec was to allow directory "includes" in postgresql.conf. >From there, this veered off into a discussion of how people *ought* to manage their configuration files. While interesting, it's irrelevant to the patch (and really ought to take place on pgsql-admin, anyway), which does nothing other than give DBAs and tool-writers more flexibility on how to manage PostgreSQL configurations. And in this project, we've *always* been about more flexibility, so it's hard for me to understand any objections to allowing directory includes ... especially when we already allow file includes. My proposal is this: (1) that we support the idea of a patch which allows people to add directory includes to postgresql.conf, in the same manner that we now support file includes, with files in the included directory to be processed alphanumerically. (2) that we put out a TODO for making the configuration variables which take lists able to take an accumulator as well as an assignment, syntax TBA. These two above seem like nice, small incremental changes to 8.5 which require no sweeping redesigns of how people handle conf files, but do allow people who want to develop new management strategies to do so. --Josh Berkus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
